World's Current Nuclear Arsenal

Governments possessing nuclear weapons do not publish detailed information about their inventory. However, by drawing on various sources outside organizations are able to provide informed estimates. In doing so, they make a distinction between "strategic nuclear weapons" that are capable of striking an adversary's homeland from a long distance and "tactical, or non-strategic, nuclear weapons" intended for battlefield use.

Inventory

The Center for Defense Information, an independent military research organization based in Washington, D.C., provides the following estimates of nuclear warheads possessed by eight nations, as of February 2002.

Source: Center for Defense Information, used with permission.

Also, each issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists contains a Nuclear Notebook containing up-to-date facts and figures on the world's nuclear weapons and weapons facilities. This information is provided by Robert S. Norris of theNatural Resources Defense Council and William Arkin.

Targeting

The United States has a Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) that determines how its nuclear weapons will be targeted. Although targeting is secret, the Natural Resources Defense Council conducted a computer simulation, based upon known nuclear doctrine, to gauge how nuclear weapons might be used according to the secret U.S. Nuclear War Plan. Although this study pre-dates the Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, the NRDC shows a targeting pattern with about the same level of strategic nuclear warheads as contemplated under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty of 2002.

Information on the targeting of Russian nuclear weapons is not available. However, those who understand Russian nuclear strategy believe that U.S. military bases, command and control centers (such as the Pentagon), and major U.S. cities are targeted by the Russian war plan.

Projections for the Future

The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed by U.S. President Bush and Russian President Putin in May 2002 requires that the two sides reduce their nuclear arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by the end of 2012. The treaty itself doesn't specify the composition of these arsenals. However, the Center for Defense information has developed an estimate of Likely Nuclear Arsenals under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (Moscow Treaty). This includes estimates for both the United States and Russia.

DIRECTORY OF TREATIES

In the United States the official source for treaties and agreements is the U.S. Department of State. This source provides historic background information as well as the text of the treaty.

The Federation of American Scientists has compiled a listing of arms control agreements. This includes treaty text, summary of provisions, and current status.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, California maintains a web site on nuclear files containing information on nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties.

Other sources include the Arms Control Association and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Moscow Treaty of 2002

The latest nuclear arms control treaty is the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. It is also referred to as the Moscow Treaty of 2002 because President Bush and President Putin signed the treaty in the Russian capital.

According to a White House news release: "The Treaty requires each country to reduce and limit its trategic nuclear warheads to 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012. Each side may determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic forces consistent with this limit. A Bilateral Implementation Commission will meet at least twice a year to discuss issues related to the Treaty."

Faith Perspective

Organizations in the faith community have welcomed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty as a step in the right direction. However, they have expressed concern that the cuts are not deep enough and that large numbers of warheads will be held in reserve. Their concern relates to anxiety about the Nuclear Posture Review of the Bush Administration, which foresees nuclear weapons forever and envisions expanded use. A sample of this opinion is offered by:

Church of the Brethren, Washington Office
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Civil Sector Critique

Civil sector advocates of nuclear disarmament have expressed concern about the lack of a reduction schedule in the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, the retention of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, and the absence of verification measures. For instance, see the views of:

Arms Control Association
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Council for a Livable World
Natural Resources Defense Council

A broad range of views on the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty was offered at ratification hearings by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the summer of 2002.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The agreement with broadest participation is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which went into effect in 1970.

The NPT represents a bargain between the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states -- United States, Soviet Union (now Russia), United Kingdom, France, and China -- and the rest of the world. The nuclear-weapon states agreed not to help other states acquire nuclear weapons but to provide assistance for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. They also pledge to move toward nuclear disarmament. In exchange the non-nuclear signatories agreed not to develop nuclear weapons.

187 states are parties to the NPT. Only Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan are not members.

The NPT provides for a Review Conference every five years. Originally the NPT was to be in effect for twenty-five years. At a Review and Extension Conference in 1995 the treaty was extended indefinitely. The five-year Review Conferences continue, preceded by meetings of the NPT Preparatory Commission (PrepCom).

Article VI

The obligation of the nuclear-weapon states to work toward nuclear disarmament is specified in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The text is as follows:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The meaning of Article VI has provoked considerable international discussion and was the focus of a 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice that the nuclear weapon states have an obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament.

Practical Steps

Non-nuclear weapon states have pressed the five acknowledged nuclear weapon states to move along with their obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament. The Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference contains 13 practical steps on nuclear disarmament. One of them specifies:

An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.

International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion

In the 1990s several U.S. and international non-governmental organizations undertook the World Court Project to obtain a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of nuclear weapons. The formal request for an advisory opinion came in 1994 from the United Nations General Assembly, which asked,

Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?

After receiving written briefs from many sources and conducting public hearings, the ICJ in 1996 issued an advisory opinion, stating that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and that states have an obligation to conclude negotiations on their elimination. The Court's specific reply to the question put by the General Assembly is as follows:

A. Unanimously: There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons;

B. By eleven votes to three: There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;

C. Unanimously: A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful;

D. Unanimously: A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons;

E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote: It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;

However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

F. Unanimously: There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

Model Nuclear Weapons Convention

For two other categories of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological, there are international conventions to outlaw their use and provide for safeguarding and eliminating existing stockpiles. Many advocates of nuclear disarmament favor a similar nuclear weapons convention.

Therefore, following the ruling on the legality of nuclear weapons by the International Court of Justice, the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy provide leadership to an international consortium of lawyers, scientists, disarmament experts, physicians and activists to draft a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention. Released in 1997, this convention outlines procedures to dismantle and destroy all nuclear weapons in a series of graduated steps and to verify compliance with such steps.

Subsequently United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions calling for negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.

The Nuclear Weapons Convention Monitor is published annually to provide updates and opinions on the proposed Nuclear Weapons Convention. It is edited by Merav Datan of International Physicians
for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

Other Treaty Proposals

UNDER DEVELOPMENT